Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Check it, people. The non propoganda thread on this matter:

Oregon Gunman: Black Lives Matter Advocate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Huh... Color me SHOCKED!

 

[Obiwan]

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed 'structured, equipped, ordered'.

The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.

Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.

Since numerous SCOTUS decisions affirm the fundamental right to own firearms, even going as far as to rule local gun control laws unconstitutional (as in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller), you're out of gas.

Evidently, you're no better of a lawyer than Hillary, who was FIRED from her first job for unethical behavior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your positron fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

If the framers had meant to exclusively protect the rights of the people while in a militia, they would not have said the "...the right of the people..."

 

[M14 Shooter]

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

Where does it say "well-regulated arms"?
Where does it say "the right of the people while serving in the militia"?
Why do you refuse to accept the established fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

 

[candycorn]

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution.

Candy clearly chooses to reject reality and substitute her own.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

Your positron fails in that the price for the gun is charged by the seller; the license (or whatever) fee is charged by the government.
As the bill of rights limits actions by the government, the former does not fall under the 2nd amendment, the latter does
And so, since you do not really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms and your argument, above, has been properly dismissed....
How does what you want to do not qualify as an infringement?

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, meaningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

You did not answer the questions put to you
Where in the 2nd Amendment do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of established law, meaningful in any way?

You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

Ah -- the a priori bomb. A sure sign you know you have run out of arguments.
The fact that under you plan people will still have guns means there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings; that being the case it is impossible to argue that your idea moves us "forward" to a place where there will be no mass shootings.
This is, of course, is why there's no reason for any intellectually honest person to accept your idea.

Well done sir!

Surgical... and final. (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)

 

[candycorn]

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

I support all Supreme Court decisions. I don't like them all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

So you get to disagree with the Supreme Court cause you don't like a ruling but anyone else is stupid ignorant or high if they disagree right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

Well except EVERYONE IS in the militia per title 10 US Federal law. Further the Supreme Court , you remember them right? Ruled that one did not need to be a member of a militia to have a right protected by the Constitution. I guess you only support the Supreme Court when you LIKE their rulings right? Remind me how you respond when a right winger disagrees with a Supreme Court decision?

I support all Supreme Court decisions. I don't like them all.

If so then explain why you are whining about the militia in regards the 2nd Amendment? The Court was clear one is NOT required to belong to the militia to have a protected right under the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Different members of the court now. These people actually seem to read the papers.

Heller majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
McDonnel Majority:
Roberts Scalia Alito Thomas Kennedy.
What's changed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well done sir!
Surgical... and final. (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)

I'd say that she simply won't admit to herself that she has nowhere to go, but first she has to realize it....

 

[jc456]

Funny how these leftist k00ks hate profiling and the hypocrites post threads profiling. They are entertainment to say the least, our hypocritical entertainment.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well done sir!
Surgical... and final. (Doesn't mean that the idiots recognize that they've no where else remaining to go, as they'll just repeat their idiocy as if it hasn't been refuted.)

I'd say that she simply won't admit to herself that she has nowhere to go, but first she has to realize it....

It's a Relativist. Lacking the means to reason objectively will preclude it from any sense of introspection.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Which was likely their intent.

Right, they meant to say only the militia could bear arms instead they said the people could bear arms. LOL!

A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Yeah, she won't be appointing any Federal judges.
And the Supreme Court won't be using your incorrect reading of the plain wording either.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

Americans do not get our rights from SCOTUS... and we don't ask SCOTUS for permission to exercise those rights.

And as it stands right now, Americans no longer consent to be governed by Leftists and their rejection of all sense of loyalty to the agreement on which our consent has long rested.

You feel that the federal government doesn't need our consent... and it is that which separates you from any kinship with America and why you and the cult are unable to be counted as Americans.

 

[Dot Com]

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[Dot Com]

That profile was changed 9x yesterday.- after he was dead!!!!

Massive thread fail.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

From your link:

This calendar view maps the number of times Spiritual Passions: ironcross45 - Doesn't Like Organized Religion, Left-hand Path, Magick and Occult, Meditation, Not Religious, But Spiritual was crawled by the Wayback Machine, not how many times the site was actually updated

Learn to read.

I'm judging you based on your ignorance. No surprise you can't admit to being wrong.

yeah Zander sheesh

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk